The ethics of pedophilia

[simgiran]

An article by Ole Martin Moen

"Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to"

http://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk_i_praksis/article/view/1718/1836

[Gabriel Svoboda]

Very good article! Unfortunately, it deals only with adult-child sex and with virtual CP, but not with the thing in between - real CP.

[regina]

The arguments of the author would make sense if ALL the cases of adult-child sex were harmful.
But the world is not ideal.
Every thing has its bright and dark side.
Thinking, like the author thought, we could not do anything.
Driving a car is potentially dangerous.
So we can walk.
But walking we can fall down.
So better to stay in bed.
But in bed the most people die.
Adult-adult sex is also often harmful , unsatisfactory and sinful, so as the saint Paul says, we should live as pure virgins.
So, let's be serious.
Every case of "pedophilia" should be considered separately.
We should not throw everyone to the one pot.
What is good for one has not to be good for another.
But it doesn't mean that it should be totally prohibited and immoral.

[Gabriel Svoboda]

Regina, do you remember there was a period of time you were banned?

I don't want to look like a person who just threatens with ban instead of discussing, but we have already discussed with you many times.

[regina]

I know, you must keep the line.
Like in a communist party.
So, I am shutting my mouth.

[regina]

But, what's more.
Ole Martin Moen makes, at the beginning of his article, one of the classical logical mistake, known as petitio principi.
A logical error which consists in accepting the thesis, which was not proved.
He writes in the first sentence of his article : "Pedophilia is bad". But how does he know it at the beginning?
It should be the conclusion of his inquiry. Possibly the last sentence but never the first.
And since he already knows, at the beginning, that "Pedophilia is bad", it means that all theses he would match to this assumption.

[Gabriel Svoboda]

No, he concludes pedophilia is not bad.

[regina]

O Ježíši!
In Poland every single day there is circa 13 lethal victims of car accidents.
Over 4 thousand dead a year, which is like a small town.
Isn't it a good reason to forbid public transport?
The simplest way is to ban.
No, because millions of people every day travels safely on the roads.
Can anyone tell me why a reasonable and responsible man, who keeps all the road laws, could not be able to drive a car?
Because of a few guys who do not observe the rules and develop speeding?
There are rules of penal code to punish them and to eliminate.
I really do not understand such a logic presented by Ole Martin Moen.

[regina]

The anglo saxons!
They are good at it!
They invented so called: newspeak: (Orwell : "Nineteen Eighty-Four").
For example - consensual sex is according to them a rape or abuse , and at least - molestation.
The Americans created a term : non-obscene "child pornography", which simply means a photos of naked kids. !
Fine?
It sounds well!

[regina]

Ole Martin Moen in his article writes: "Why may children consent to some things but not to other things? The central explanation seems to be that while some things are harmful, other things are not, and while adults have the privilege to consent to harmful things (within certain limits), children do not have the same privilege, or do not have it to the same extent".
But things are not only harmful or harmless.
Things have both sides.
In some cases, they may be harmful, but in other situations do not have to, and are not.
Riding a bike is recommended but a child can have an accident and die.
Can the child change sex if it feels transgender?
Is the child can give an informed consent in such a case?
The judge in Australia has allowed for such a change for a ten year old child.
A COURT has allowed a 10-year-old boy to become the youngest Australian to have sex-change therapy.
http://www.news.com.au/national/boy-10-in-sex-change/story-e6frfkvr-1226040236309
Why is it not the same with the other things (I will not mention cautiously which).
The author further writes : " One difference, pointed out by Ben Piecker and Jan Steutel, is that although children are sexual beings in one respect, child and adult sexualities are importantly different, and children and adults have different aims in sexual engagement".
I wonder, how do they know this?
Did they do some scientific research in this field?
They are philosophers, not scientists.
Kinsey stated that little children have the same orgasms as adults.

[haizi]

deleted

[regina]

Ole Martin Moen says about psychological effects of adult-child sex on children; drug dependence, alcohol dependence, major depression, and general anxiety disorder, dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, and various eating disorders.
Do you really believe that all of this is caused by a consensual sex?
Is it even possible?
Is it really true that sex is so toxic especially for children?
Rind says that it is vice versa. A bad family, lack of love and fondling, neglect - contribute to the malfunctioning of a child and later an adult..

[Gabriel Svoboda]

Is it even possible?

Yes, it is easily possible.

[Kofola Nizozemi]

I know, you must keep the line.
Like in a communist party.
So, I am shutting my mouth.

Well you are at a Czech forum, so you are at the communist party.

However it can be worse: in most countries there is no such forum at CEPEK, in the Netherlands you can only talk positive about pedofilia when you are with friends, not on the internet, not on the telephone, not through the e-mail.
We used to have Martijn association and their website and forum, but all went down, the USA and EU dictates what we Dutch should think.


I hope Czech can stay a little free country, without the TTIP, without dictatorship from either Washington or Brussels and Czech can stay the way Havel dreamt about.

[Kofola Nizozemi]

The anglo saxons!
They are good at it!
They invented so called: newspeak: (Orwell : "Nineteen Eighty-Four").
For example - consensual sex is according to them a rape or abuse , and at least - molestation.
The Americans created a term : non-obscene "child pornography", which simply means a photos of naked kids. !
Fine?
It sounds well!

Anglo Saxons invented this whole evil laws back in the 13th century.
Remember queen Victoria? She was really a crazy b*tch. In the Victorian age even the dogs had underwear and furniture which looked too much to women legs had some kind of underwear. Brits invented this, they are completely nuts and still today newspapers every day create mass-hysteria about child-intimacy.
Meanwhile drunk Brits make Prague unsafe, they are very aggressive, because of sexual oppression and Czech police don't do a thing about them, because they bring money to Czech.

The Americans have the same attitude, as this was a English colony.

[regina]

I hope Czech can stay a little free country

I admire Czech President Miloš Zeman!
He reprimanded the American ambassador and forbade him access to Hradčany.
"The doors of the Czech presidential residence are now closed to US Ambassador in Prague, Andrew Schapiro, after the former Chicago lawyer unduly advised Czech leader Milos Zeman against attending a Victory Day parade in Moscow."
Fuck the Americans!

[regina]

Yes, it is easily possible.

But an australian ethicist , mentioned in the article, Igor Primoratz, in his article "Pedophilia" (Public Affairs Quarterly Volume 13, Number 1, January 1999) writes:
"... it must be granted that the harmfulness of pedophilia is still very much a moot point..."
So the harmfulness of pedophilia (i.e adult-child sex) is not obvious , widespread and inevitable.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441217?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Gabriel Svoboda]

Pedophilia and adult-child sex are completely different things.

[regina]

Like love and sex.
You may love a woman without sex with her.
Because you are a catholic priest and you observe purity.
But you can express your love by sex.
That means, carnally.

[regina]

"We are a group of people joined together by one thing – an erotic attraction to children. "
"Our mission IS NOT to legalize sexual activities with children, to lower the age of consent."
Can you see it?
What a hypocrisy!
We , virtuous pedophiles, feel a pure erotic attraction to children not a dirty sexual lust.
Therefore we are against sex legalization.
But what is the difference between eros and sex?
Are we for the legalization of erotic activities with children?
If we call the wolf a benevolent St. Bernard (dog) would it be better?